It will be just another thread that I do and no one will be able to answer. I'm thinking about making a new section and post all the threads I have put up that evolutionists ignore because to answer is to face real reality.

Circular reasoning will become an empirical equivocation, science is self correcting, and scientific theories aren't always absolutes, even though gravity can be proven to work every time it's tested in a laboratory experiment.

Oh yeah. We also can't forget that chromosonal mutations don't increase genetic information, but it will be paraded around as an example of speciation.

It will be just another thread that I do and no one will be able to answer. I'm thinking about making a new section and post all the threads I have put up that evolutionists ignore because to answer is to face real reality.

Careful, Isaac. That's where they come back with:

At which point, apart from the evidence, we will have to concede that we have faith, too.

Circular reasoning will become an empirical equivocation, science is self correcting, and scientific theories aren't always absolutes, even though gravity can be proven to work every time it's tested in a laboratory experiment.

Oh yeah. We also can't forget that chromosonal mutations don't increase genetic information, but it will be paraded around as an example of speciation.Careful, Isaac. That's where they come back with:

At which point, apart from the evidence, we will have to concede that we have faith, too. Thanks.

I can see the whole world, even myself as a former unbeliever, scoffing when the world is proven to be less than 10,000 years old and a global flood is proven. It would only prove to them that evolution happened in thousands instead of millions of years.

Were we saved by the evidence or were we saved when we believed the message that was preached? Unbelief is an enemy and people are going to have to believe it!

So much so, that satan is tempting me to edit the unbelief part out of my post right now. What a pig LOL.

"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces."

I would not waste my time if I knew the only ones who would see it is them. We have many who come here and read and never join. If what I say plants a seed or strengthens their faith then I have done my work for the kingdom. But to never do it for that reason of waste, is to never reveal to others the truth.

2) geographical distribution of species: if species radiated out from, say, Noah's Ark in more or less their present form, why did not a single species of marsupials fail to march straight to Australia? Why did no placentals (except bats, who can fly) succeed in getting to Australia? Why did all penguins choose to take the long waddle south instead of the long waddle north, to equally habitable climates? Why do island-bound species always look the most like similar species on the nearest piece of mainland?

3) though we have almost none of the fossil record available to us (250,000 of the estimated 4,000,000,000 species that have lived), no fossil has ever been found in a place or layer that evolution does not say it should.

4) hundreds of species, both fossil and living, have had their existence and traits predicted by evolutionary theory prior to their discovery.

5) true atavisms: why, for example, is 1 whale in 500 born with an atavistic leg complete with all the bones necessary for walking on land?

6) vestigial traits: why do penguins have wings rather than flippers? why do humans, who do not eat leaves at a high rate, still have that leaf-processing apparatus known as the appendix?

2) geographical distribution of species: if species radiated out from, say, Noah's Ark in more or less their present form, why did not a single species of marsupials fail to march straight to Australia? Why did no placentals (except bats, who can fly) succeed in getting to Australia? Why did all penguins choose to take the long waddle south instead of the long waddle north, to equally habitable climates? Why do island-bound species always look the most like similar species on the nearest piece of mainland?

3) though we have almost none of the fossil record available to us (250,000 of the estimated 4,000,000,000 species that have lived), no fossil has ever been found in a place or layer that evolution does not say it should.

4) hundreds of species, both fossil and living, have had their existence and traits predicted by evolutionary theory prior to their discovery.

5) true atavisms: why, for example, is 1 whale in 500 born with an atavistic leg complete with all the bones necessary for walking on land?

6) vestigial traits: why do penguins have wings rather than flippers? why do humans, who do not eat leaves at a high rate, still have that leaf-processing apparatus known as the appendix?

With due respect, that is not empirical evidence for macro-evolution. And if you want to start another thread addressing those issues, feel free to.

2) geographical distribution of species:Ã‚Â if species radiated out from, say, Noah's Ark in more or less their present form, why did not a single species of marsupials fail to march straight to Australia?Ã‚Â Why did no placentals (except bats, who can fly) succeed in getting to Australia?Ã‚Â Why did all penguins choose to take the long waddle south instead of the long waddle north, to equally habitable climates? Why do island-bound species always look the most like similar species on the nearest piece of mainland?

3)Ã‚Â though we have almost none of the fossil record available to us (250,000 of the estimated 4,000,000,000 species that have lived), no fossil has ever been found in a place or layer that evolution does not say it should.Ã‚Â

4) hundreds of species, both fossil and living, have had their existence and traits predicted by evolutionary theory prior to their discovery.

5) true atavisms:Ã‚Â why, for example, is 1 whale in 500 born with an atavistic leg complete with all the bones necessary for walking on land?

6) vestigial traits:Ã‚Â why do penguins have wings rather than flippers?Ã‚Â why do humans, who do not eat leaves at a high rate, still have that leaf-processing apparatus known as the appendix?

1) this is also evidence of a common designer since it is not DIRECT evidence showing evolution... Evolution is assumed from this.

2) Again this is not direct evidence of evolution, rather a statement against creationism

3) There is a thread showing many different animals that have not "evolved" over these "millions" of years... Hence these pictures refute your claims here...

To pick two examples, whales and snakes both have vesigial pelvic bones showing that they evolved from animals with legs. There is also, in the case of whales, a sequence of fossils showing the transition from terrestrial quadrupeds through amphibious intermediates to modern whales.

Just out of curiosity, if you don't agree with the above evidence, what would you actually accept as evidence of macro-evolution? Is there any hypothetical discovery which could change your minds?

To pick two examples, whales and snakes both have vesigial pelvic bones showing that they evolved from animals with legs.

The above is an Ã¢â‚¬Ëœa prioriÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ opinion driven, and not Ã¢â‚¬ËœempiricallyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ driven statement. There is absolute no Ã¢â‚¬ËœempiricalÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ evidence that these so-called Ã¢â‚¬Å“vestigialÃ¢â‚¬Â bones havenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t always been as they are today. But the evolutionist will grasp onto anything that they cannot explain Ã¢â‚¬ËœempiricallyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ (i.e. scientific gray area) and call it a Ã¢â‚¬Ëœfact proving evolutionÃ¢â‚¬â„¢, not even realizing (or purposefully ignoring) the Ã¢â‚¬Å“evolution of the gapsÃ¢â‚¬Â implications.

First Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Provide the gradual sequential transition of fossils that prove your Ã¢â‚¬ËœevolutionaryÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ hypothesis, and not mere opinion Ã¢â‚¬ËœsuggestingÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ macro-evolution, then proceed.

Second Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Quit calling an Ã¢â‚¬ËœopinionÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ a fact.

Third Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Saying something is so, doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t make it so! And you will be called on it here every time. So, if you donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t want to put yourself in a bind by wasting everyoneÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s time by making assertions you cannot back up, think through your posts (before you post them) and provide the evidences to back up your assertions.

There is also, in the case of whales, a sequence of fossils showing the transition from terrestrial quadrupeds through amphibious intermediates to modern whales.

Really? Can you provide this Ã¢â‚¬Å“sequence of fossils showing the transition from terrestrial quadrupeds through amphibious intermediates to modern whales?Ã¢â‚¬Â This should be interesting! Especially given the FACT that evolutionary driven science has only provided Ã¢â‚¬Å“someÃ¢â‚¬Â fossils (a very limited amount at best), lined them up, and called it evolution. But when the critical thinker actually looks it, they see leaps and gaps (evolution of the gaps) that donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t even support Ã¢â‚¬Å“punctuated equilibriumÃ¢â‚¬Â, let alone any semblance of macro evolution.

HereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s my challenge to you (since you made the bold assertions): Provide the gradual sequential transition of fossils that prove the transition from terrestrial quadrupeds through amphibious intermediates to modern whales! Further: The modern evolutionary model claims the ancestry of whales to be aquatic to terrestrial and back to aquatic, so I would appreciate those gradual sequential fossils transitions as well.

At the end of the day, the only thing macro-evolutionary science has done is provided a few displaced and disjointed fossilized remains, and said Ã¢â‚¬Å“wah-lahÃ¢â‚¬Â look evolution!!! Once again, provided the Ã¢â‚¬Å“Empirical evidenceÃ¢â‚¬Â (as the OP called for) and not mere pre-supposed opinion.

Just out of curiosity, if you don't agree with the above evidence, what would you actually accept as evidence of macro-evolution?

First Ã¢â‚¬â€œ You havenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t provided a shred of evidence, so if you could do that, it would be appreciated.

Second Ã¢â‚¬â€œ If you would fulfill number one, we could move on to answering the second half of your question.

Is there any hypothetical discovery which could change your minds?

The term Ã¢â‚¬Å“hypothetical discoveryÃ¢â‚¬Â is a misnomer as applied to evidence or fact. Why; because the term Ã¢â‚¬Å“hypotheticalÃ¢â‚¬Â means something Ã¢â‚¬Å“existing as or involving phenomena that exists as an unproven idea, theory, or possibilityÃ¢â‚¬Â. Therefore something Ã¢â‚¬Å“hypotheticalÃ¢â‚¬Â is not Ã¢â‚¬Å“discoveredÃ¢â‚¬Â but rather Ã¢â‚¬Å“ImaginedÃ¢â‚¬Â.

So, to answer your question: If you actually provided Ã¢â‚¬Å“real evidenceÃ¢â‚¬Â and not Ã¢â‚¬Å“imaginary evidenceÃ¢â‚¬Â.

To pick two examples, whales and snakes both have vesigial pelvic bones showing that they evolved from animals with legs. There is also, in the case of whales, a sequence of fossils showing the transition from terrestrial quadrupeds through amphibious intermediates to modern whales.

Snakes used to have legs according to The Bible. Now they have little limbs that are used in mating.

The whale's "pelvis" attaches muscles that are used for mating, a rather important function if you ask me. There is no evidence whatsoever that these bones and muscles were ever used for anything else.

Just out of curiosity, if you don't agree with the above evidence, what would you actually accept as evidence of macro-evolution? Is there any hypothetical discovery which could change your minds?

If you show a reptile changing into a bird then I'll concede to the entire theory of evolution. We observe that animals stay within the same kind, and we see this in the stratas as well. This observation has far more evidence than the uniformitarian view of evolution does.

The above is an Ã¢â‚¬Ëœa prioriÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ opinion driven, and not Ã¢â‚¬ËœempiricallyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ driven statement. There is absolute no Ã¢â‚¬ËœempiricalÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ evidence that these so-called Ã¢â‚¬Å“vestigialÃ¢â‚¬Â bones havenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t always been as they are today. But the evolutionist will grasp onto anything that they cannot explain Ã¢â‚¬ËœempiricallyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ (i.e. scientific gray area) and call it a Ã¢â‚¬Ëœfact proving evolutionÃ¢â‚¬â„¢, not even realizing (or purposefully ignoring) the Ã¢â‚¬Å“evolution of the gapsÃ¢â‚¬Â implications....

The above is an Ã¢â‚¬Ëœa prioriÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ opinion driven, and not Ã¢â‚¬ËœempiricallyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ driven statement. There is absolute no Ã¢â‚¬ËœempiricalÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ evidence that these so-called Ã¢â‚¬Å“vestigialÃ¢â‚¬Â bones havenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t always been as they are today. But the evolutionist will grasp onto anything that they cannot explain Ã¢â‚¬ËœempiricallyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ (i.e. scientific gray area) and call it a Ã¢â‚¬Ëœfact proving evolutionÃ¢â‚¬â„¢, not even realizing (or purposefully ignoring) the Ã¢â‚¬Å“evolution of the gapsÃ¢â‚¬Â implications....

Yes, and I suppose the question would then be raised (as per the OP) Ã¢â‚¬Å“what empirical evidence can we find that would lend us to believe that the above links could be used to support macro-evolution?Ã¢â‚¬Â

Second Ã¢â‚¬â€œ If you would fulfill number one, we could move on to answering the second half of your question. The term Ã¢â‚¬Å“hypothetical discoveryÃ¢â‚¬Â is a misnomer as applied to evidence or fact. Why; because the term Ã¢â‚¬Å“hypotheticalÃ¢â‚¬Â means something Ã¢â‚¬Å“existing as or involving phenomena that exists as an unproven idea, theory, or possibilityÃ¢â‚¬Â. Therefore something Ã¢â‚¬Å“hypotheticalÃ¢â‚¬Â is not Ã¢â‚¬Å“discoveredÃ¢â‚¬Â but rather Ã¢â‚¬Å“ImaginedÃ¢â‚¬Â.

So, to answer your question: If you actually provided Ã¢â‚¬Å“real evidenceÃ¢â‚¬Â and not Ã¢â‚¬Å“imaginary evidenceÃ¢â‚¬Â.

I think you may have misinterpreted me here.

In the interests of fairness, I asked a die-hard evolutionist if there was any discovery which would cause him to reject evolution, and he replied with "show me a fossil bird in Devonian strata". This would indeed be very difficult for evolution to explain and would force many to abandon, or at the very least drastically revise, the theory of evolution.

What I want to know is this: is there a parallel example in creationism?

In the interests of fairness, I asked a die-hard evolutionist if there was any discovery which would cause him to reject evolution, and he replied with "show me a fossil bird in Devonian strata". This would indeed be very difficult for evolution to explain and would force many to abandon, or at the very least drastically revise, the theory of evolution.

What I want to know is this: is there a parallel example in creationism?

In the interests of fairness.... That isn't evidence of evolution, it is a claim against creationism. Just because that person feels that creationism is wrong doesn't count as evidence for evolution, (and visa versa). What must be accepted is that both worldviews consist of a faith-based perspective.. Creationists admit this gladly, evolutionists deny this tooth and nail... (Despite invoking assumption based research that requires a measure of faith).

I think a parallel example to your anti-creationist claim will be, show me a mechanism or process that allows for complex inter-dependent parts and systems to "evolve".... (This is a big point for me, as I am sick and tired of it being placed under the ambiguous banner of "natural selection"... Natural selection doesn't define the steps taken)

Second Ã¢â‚¬â€œ If you would fulfill number one, we could move on to answering the second half of your question. The term Ã¢â‚¬Å“hypothetical discoveryÃ¢â‚¬Â is a misnomer as applied to evidence or fact. Why; because the term Ã¢â‚¬Å“hypotheticalÃ¢â‚¬Â means something Ã¢â‚¬Å“existing as or involving phenomena that exists as an unproven idea, theory, or possibilityÃ¢â‚¬Â. Therefore something Ã¢â‚¬Å“hypotheticalÃ¢â‚¬Â is not Ã¢â‚¬Å“discoveredÃ¢â‚¬Â but rather Ã¢â‚¬Å“ImaginedÃ¢â‚¬Â.

So, to answer your question: If you actually provided Ã¢â‚¬Å“real evidenceÃ¢â‚¬Â and not Ã¢â‚¬Å“imaginary evidenceÃ¢â‚¬Â.

I think you may have misinterpreted me here.

I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t think soÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ I went back and reviewed your post, and found absolutely no misinterpretation, as I answered all of your assertions cogently and concisely. I could repost it again, in its entirety if you find any of it confusing.

In the interests of fairness, I asked a die-hard evolutionist if there was any discovery which would cause him to reject evolution, and he replied with "show me a fossil bird in Devonian strata". This would indeed be very difficult for evolution to explain and would force many to abandon, or at the very least drastically revise, the theory of evolution.

gilbo12345 is Ã¢â‚¬Å“a die-hard evolutionistÃ¢â‚¬Â? I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t find that to be a fair assessment at allÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ Nor did he make the claim that you allege.

Further, ALL claims submitted as fact by evolutionists are Ã¢â‚¬Å“very difficultÃ¢â‚¬Â for them to provide empirical evidence. Which begs the question: Why didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t you actually address my refutations of your assertions, as I did yours? Side stepping the refuted issues via Ã¢â‚¬Å“bait and switchÃ¢â‚¬Â and/or Ã¢â‚¬Å“Red HerringÃ¢â‚¬Â argumentation will be pointed out as it happens.

What I want to know is this: is there a parallel example in creationism?